...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Vegetation Science >Too good to be true: pitfalls of using mean Ellenberg indicator values in vegetation analyses.
【24h】

Too good to be true: pitfalls of using mean Ellenberg indicator values in vegetation analyses.

机译:太不可思议了:在植被分析中使用平均Ellenberg指标值的陷阱。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Question: Mean Ellenberg indicator values (EIVs) inherit information about compositional similarity, because during their calculation species abundances (or presence-absences) are used as weights. Can this similarity issue actually be demonstrated, does it bias results of vegetation analyses correlating mean EIVs with other aspects of species composition and how often are biased studies published? Methods: In order to separate information on compositional similarity possibly present in mean EIVs, a new variable was introduced, calculated as a weighted average of randomized species EIVs. The performance of these mean randomized EIVs was compared with that of the mean real EIVs on the one hand and random values (randomized mean EIVs) on the other. To demonstrate the similarity issue, differences between samples were correlated with dissimilarity matrices based on various indices. Next, the three mean EIV variables were tested in canonical correspondence analysis (CCA), detrended correspondence analysis (DCA), analysis of variance (ANOVA) between vegetation clusters, and in regression on species richness. Subsequently, a modified permutation test of significance was proposed, taking the similarity issue into account. In addition, an inventory was made of studies published in the Journal of Vegetation Science and Applied Vegetation Science between 2000 and 2010 likely reporting biased results due to the similarity issue. Results: Using mean randomized EIVs, it is shown that compositional similarity is inherited into mean EIVs and most resembles the inter-sample distances in correspondence analysis, which itself is based on iterative weighted averaging. The use of mean EIVs produced biased results in all four analysis types examined: unrealistic (too high) explained variances in CCA, too many significant correlations with ordination axes in DCA, too many significant differences between cluster analysis groups and too high coefficients of determination in regressions on species richness. Modified permutation tests provided ecologically better interpretable results. From 95 studies using Ellenberg indicator values, 36 reported potentially biased results. Conclusions: No statistical inferences should be made in analyses relating mean EIVs with other variables derived from the species composition as this can produce highly biased results, leading to misinterpretation. Alternatively, a modified permutation test using mean randomized EIVs can sometimes be used.Digital Object Identifier http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2011.01366.x
机译:问题:平均Ellenberg指标值(EIV)继承了有关组成相似性的信息,因为在计算过程中,物种的丰度(或存在度)用作权重。这个“相似性”问题是否可以得到实际证明,它会使植被平均分析结果与物种组成的其他方面相关的植被分析结果产生偏差吗?有偏差的研究多久出版一次?方法:为了分离平均EIV中可能存在的成分相似性信息,引入了一个新变量,计算为随机物种EIV的加权平均值。一方面将这些平均随机EIVs 的性能与平均真实EIVs 的性能进行比较,然后将随机值(随机平均EIVs)另一个。为了证明相似性问题,基于各种指标,将样本之间的差异与相似性矩阵相关联。接下来,在规范对应分析(CCA),去趋势对应分析(DCA),植被簇之间的方差分析(ANOVA)以及物种丰富度回归中测试了三个平均EIV变量。随后,考虑了相似性问题,提出了一种改进的显着性置换检验。此外,还对2000年至2010年发表在《植被科学杂志》和《应用植被科学》上的研究进行了盘点,这些研究可能由于相似问题而报告了偏见。 。结果:使用平均随机EIV ,可以证明成分相似性被继承为平均EIV,并且在对应分析中最类似于​​样本间距离,其本身基于迭代加权平均。在所有检查的四种分析类型中,均值EIV的使用都产生了偏差的结果:CCA中不切实际(过高)的解释方差,DCA中与协调轴的太多显着相关性,聚类分析组之间的太多显着性差异以及物种丰富度的回​​归。修改后的置换测试提供了生态上更好的可解释结果。在使用Ellenberg指标值进行的95项研究中,有36项报告了可能存在偏差的结果。结论:在将平均EIV与物种组成的其他变量相关的分析中,不应进行统计推断,因为这会产生高度偏差的结果,从而导致误解。另外,有时也可以使用使用平均随机EIV 的修改后的置换测试。数字对象标识符http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2011.01366.x

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号